[susiecambria]

> Combining the pool of babies born to mothers with and without hep b for determining risk factors is pretty dishonest. It is done to pad the revenues of large pharma companies. There is a non-zero increase in risk from getting any medicine. We weigh those risks against what the medicine is for. For babies born to mothers without hep b, the best choice is to not vax, for less lucky babies its in the vax category. Ignoring this doesn't improve outcomes. Risk is just complex.

All I can offer in response is what Dr. Offit said: "In 1991 there were roughly 30,000 in children less than 10 years of age who got hepatitis B in this country. Half of them got it from their mothers. The other half got it from relatively casual contact um with from people who had chronic hepatitis B virus and didn't know it. How many people in the US are infected with hepatitis B virus? Do we know? Yes. So it's tens of thousands every year. And then in terms of how many are chronically infected, about a little over 2 million."

I recognize that big pharma has a ton of problems and questionable practices. But Dr. Offit's statement "The other half got it from relatively casual contact um with from people who had chronic hepatitis B virus and didn't know it." suggests that being born to moms w/o hep B is not without risk particularly given the outsize risk for cancer.

[hunterpayne]

Doesn't hep B transmission require blood or other fluid contact? Or am I confusing it with something else?

[susiecambria]

Yes, transmission is by bodily fluid.

Given that at least half and up to two-thirds [0] of those infected don't know they are, baby may be in contact with a person infected who does not take precautions to prevent transmission.

[0] https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(23)02173-7/pdf